DIGAMBAR MADHAVSA Vs. SK YASMIN SK IMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner at the stage of admission. The only point which was taken by the learned Advocate was that in a suit involving the relief of injunction simpliciter, reference to tenancy Court is not necessary. Reliance for the said proposition is placed on (Maruti Sambha Surve v. Parshuram Krishna Koratkar and another) 1983 Mh.L.J. 958. It was stated that in this case a reference was made to the Tenancy Court and it reached up to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. In the present case also, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has answered the reference under section 99-A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The authority aforesaid is cited in support of the contention that Civil Court should not refer the issue of tenancy to the Tenancy Court in a suit for injunction simpliciter. This judgment was delivered by Chandurkar, Actg. C.J., as he then was. This is a judgment of our High Court.

(2.) I find that in this judgment there is no reference to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court on this point, which finally settles the controversy in regard to the reference of matters to the Tenancy Court. In view of the specific observations of the Supreme Court in (Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi) A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 653, this point needs no elaboration. The relevant observations are to be found at page 658 and they are as under :---

(3.) In the result, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gundajis case (cited supra), I decline to follow the authority reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 958. Writ petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed.